Evaluating the performance of table processing algorithms

Abstract. While techniques for evaluating the performance of lower-level document analysis tasks such as optical character recognition have gained acceptance in the literature, attempts to formalize the problem for higher-level algorithms, while receiving a fair amount of attention in terms of theory, have generally been less successful in practice, perhaps owing to their complexity. In this paper, we introduce intuitive, easy-to-implement evaluation schemes for the related problems of table detection and table structure recognition. We also present the results of several small experiments, demonstrating how well the methodologies work and the useful sorts of feedback they provide. We first consider the table detection problem. Here algorithms can yield various classes of errors, including non-table regions improperly labeled as tables (insertion errors), tables missed completely (deletion errors), larger tables broken into a number of smaller ones (splitting errors), and groups of smaller tables combined to form larger ones (merging errors). This leads naturally to the use of an edit distance approach for assessing the results of table detection. Next we address the problem of evaluating table structure recognition. Our model is based on a directed acyclic attribute graph, or table DAG. We describe a new paradigm, “graph probing,” for comparing the results returned by the recognition system and the representation created during ground-truthing. Probing is in fact a general concept that could be applied to other document recognition tasks as well.

[1]  Daniel P. Lopresti,et al.  Table structure recognition and its evaluation , 2000, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[2]  John K. Ousterhout,et al.  Tcl and the Tk Toolkit , 1994 .

[3]  Luc Vincent,et al.  Ground-truthing and benchmarking document page segmentation , 1995, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition.

[4]  Xinxin Wang,et al.  Tabular Abstraction, Editing, and Formatting , 1996 .

[5]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  A Metric for Comparing Relational Descriptions , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[6]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Algorithms for Clustering Data , 1988 .

[7]  Robert J. Schalkoff,et al.  Pattern recognition - statistical, structural and neural approaches , 1991 .

[8]  King-Sun Fu,et al.  A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[9]  Daniel P. Lopresti,et al.  Medium-independent table detection , 1999, Electronic Imaging.

[10]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[11]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  TINTIN: a system for retrieval in text tables , 1997, DL '97.

[12]  Yasuto Ishitani,et al.  Flexible and Robust Model Matching based on Association Graph for Form Image Understanding , 1995, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition.

[13]  George Nagy DOCUMENT IMAGE ANALYSIS: AUTOMATED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION , 1995 .

[14]  H.S. Baird,et al.  A retargetable table reader , 1997, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition.

[15]  Junichi Kanai Automated performance evaluation of document image analysis systems: Issues and practice , 1996 .

[16]  Daniel P. Lopresti,et al.  Issues in Ground-Truthing Graphic Documents , 2001, GREC.

[17]  Stefan Agne,et al.  Benchmarking of document page segmentation , 1999, Electronic Imaging.